cont...

My personal dislike of religion — all of them, not just Christianity — is entirely different. People like Polycarp and runner solidify it. On one hand, religion itself is irrelevant to the question. But on the other, our conceptions of god are mostly so rooted in religion that it's hard to separate them. One reason why I don't believe in god is because of the picture religion paints of him/she/it/them/whatever.

Polycarp's ramblings, for example, prove that Christianity, in particular, isn't evidential. (Which is fine, it doesn't have to be, it's religion.) It's not difficult to see that it's historically speculative, and that other religions would have holy book evidence for their god, and that Poly sees evidence because of his faith, not the other way round.

Speaking about Jesus,s promiscuous behavior, one could say he was a very happy man indeed. Some may say a little too happy, so in saying that, all homosexuals must be direct descendants from the man him self! and i think i read some where, "that god made man in the image of him self"

There you go! another great mystery solved.:)

Its true that Jesus had alot of love him and its funny that this seems to correlate with the heart feelings of gay people.

That would explain alot. smile

EVO

My my, Boaz, you are having a bitchy day, aren't you.

Personal attacks on one thread, snide remarks about my use of the English language on this one. Anyone who doesn't know you better might think you were bereft of cogent argument.

Oh, sorry.

Bereft: adj. (usu. bereft of) deprived of, without, minus, lacking in, devoid of, cut off from, parted from, sans (archaic) robbed of, empty of, denuded of.

Cogent: adj. Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing

Come to think of it, the arguments are rather thin, aren't they?

>>I repeat my assertion that the issue which divides the 2 camps is not the value or reliability of the evidence but a self chosen attitude in the case of those who reject it.<<

Why "those who reject?" Boaz. Surely, the point about evidence is that it intended to prove something. Those who accept the paucity of evidence available for the existence of "eye-witness accounts" of Jesus and his miracles are more likely to have a "self-chosen attitude"?

Sorry again.

Paucity: n. scarcity, dearth, a small and inadequate amount

>>I think EVIDENCE which should persuade people is the dramatic contrast between the word and work of Jesus of Nazareth and any other alleged religious identity either before or since.<<

Boaz, try to keep at least within a country mile of accepted logical constructs. That sentence is a nonsense in anybody's language.

veronika,
>> I don't firmly believe they don't exist, I simply have no belief in them. ... As an atheist, I am simply absent of belief. <<

I am not going to criticize your position because, frankly speaking I do not understand what you mean. For me the statement “I do not believe in Easter Bunnies“ is equivalent to “I believe Easter Bunnies do not exist”. What mjpb meat by the distinction was probably something that an agnostic philosopher expressed thus:

“(The agnostic) does not deny the possibility and occurrence of mystical experiences, and may even believe himself to be acquainted with such experiences. But he is incapable of believing unconditionally what he cannot organize conceptually. He does not reject as mere verbiage the mixture of factual statements, paradoxes and absurdities, by which religious doctrines point to an alleged supernatural reality which he does not apprehend. He does not deny that what cannot be perceived, imagined or brought under concepts may nevertheless exist. Nor is he necessarily stranger to the mood in which birth and dead, good and evil, and even the existence of whatever exists, appear a dark mystery. But ... he sees no reason for pretending that the religious doctrine of his neighbour or some other doctrine illuminates this darkness for him. He may be helped by metaphysical speculations of the great philosophers, undertake his own speculative journey ... but he will expect to bring back, at best, no more than a thought possibility and never an unconditionally acceptable truth.

The agnostic is not an atheist who unconditionally, uncritically and by an act of faith accepts the doctrine that reality is identical with what is accessible to ‘ordinary’ experience and theorizing. ... [Stephen Körner, Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, Penguin Books 1969; note that the philosopher does not use the ambiguous and rather subjective word evidence].

With these descriptions I can understand both an agnostic and an atheist, and I can see their points, but I cannot see yours. I can share neither the agnostic nor the atheist positions, although they help me to better understand my own world-view.

George: << For me the statement “I do not believe in Easter Bunnies“ is equivalent to “I believe Easter Bunnies do not exist”. >>

Sorry George, but this is classic sophistry. As you well know, the non-acceptance of a positive affirmation does not imply an acceptance of the negative. I thought you knew better.

I think that Veronika, like me and most other atheists, would be quite happy to "believe" in Easter Bunnies if sufficient empirical evidence was produce to warrant such a belief.

The same goes for Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, the Rainbow Serpent or whatever. Atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief.

CJ Morgan,
First of all, sophistry in my dictionary means "use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving". That is an accusation I would not use against Veronika, you or anybody else here.

Now to the point of your post. The question is not about acceptance or not of an affirmation: I have to accept if somebody says he/she thinks this or that, e.g. believes this or that affirmation (statement to be true), because it is by its very nature something only he/she can know. The problem is with the meaning of the phrase "believe in".

In case of the Easter Bunnies, you did not suggest what else would the statement "I don't believe in" mean: those who do not believe in them are not unsure about their existence, but are pretty sure they don‘t exist, without adding silly or imaginary events that might change their mind.

[In case when "believe in" stands for an expression of faith, like in the Nicene Creed the "I believe in God" does not simply mean a belief in His existence but faith; similarly when a politician says that he believes in Kevin Rudd, it is not just a belief in his existence].

I thought Veronika had the first meaning of "believe in" in mind, but then again I wasn‘t sure. Classically, the dispute was about the STATEMENT - not somebody‘s personal acceptance or lack of personal beliefs - “God exists”. Such a statement you can either AGREE with, i.e believe it to be true (for whatever reasons), DISAGREE with i.e. believe it not to be true (for whatever reasons) or say you DO NOT KNOW. No other possibility.

It used to be implicitly assumed what was meant by “God“ (the Christian model) and more or less what “exists” meant. Today, if somebody is not clear about what these terms mean in the context of a dispute - as I am often on this forum - one should be more careful in choosing the words to defend one’s own position. Otherwise one has to accept the simple logic of agree-disagree-don‘t know.